Quebec HIV case challenges assumptions about nondisclosure
NEWS / Steve Biron at the centre of landmark case
Luna Allison / National / Friday, January 28, 2011
Share |

An HIV-positive man in Quebec City is in custody facing charges of aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault for allegedly having bareback sex with 11 or more men between June and October 2010 despite knowing his poz status.
He faces up to 14 years in prison if the charges stick, but the story is not as simple as it would first seem.

Steve Biron, 32, first appeared on police radar Nov 5, 2010, when a fuck-friend of Biron’s came forward with a complaint against him, saying that Biron had lied about his HIV status before they had unprotected sex.

After processing the complaint, Quebec City police launched an investigation. They arrested Biron on Nov 22 and released a province-wide communiqué a week later, saying that he was being charged with aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault and asking people to call the police if they had been in contact with Biron on the internet (Biron hooked up with most of the guys through gay411.com.) The communiqué, along with Biron’s picture, ran in most newspapers, on web-based news outlets and on several TV channels across Quebec.

“We asked the population to call us if [anybody] was involved with him,” says Sandra Dion, a communications agent with the Quebec City Police Service. “He was on the internet and everything, so the investigator believed he had many partners. We’re not allowed by law to talk about his health status, so we could not say he has HIV. That’s why we asked people to contact the police.”

But there are growing questions about the validity of the case and how it’s being handled.

During a Dec 22 court appearance, the public heard from the investigating officer in the case, Detective Sergeant Louis Lachance. While on the stand, Lachance confused case details, as well as several terms related to HIV and the gay community. He excused himself by saying he didn’t have his papers in front of him. Judge Chantale Pelletier, who was presiding, said, “Well, you must know the case?” Lachance replied that he wasn’t comfortable with the case.

That day, it also came to light that the original complainant in the Biron case has done time for fraud, extortion and breach of conditions. His entire criminal record — totalling more than 40 criminal acts — was read into the court record by Judge Pelletier during the Dec 22 hearing.

Biron’s lawyer at the time, Herman Bédard, decided not to present any of the scientific evidence he had at his disposal about the effects of the antiretroviral meds that his client had been on since being diagnosed with HIV in 2007, or about Biron’s undetectable viral load — both of which significantly lower the risk of HIV transmission and may have influenced the decision to go to trial.

“The rule in Canada is that someone can be prosecuted for not disclosing his or her HIV-positive status before engaging in a sexual act that represents a significant risk of HIV transmission,” says Cecile Kazatchkine, a policy analyst with the HIV/AIDS Legal Network. “So, the courts take into account whether there was or was not a significant risk of transmission. We know now that someone’s viral load will have an impact on HIV transmission. The lower the viral load, the [lower] the risk of transmission. The courts cannot ignore the science anymore. We’re not talking about elimination of the risk; we’re talking about [there not being] a significant risk.”

“It is actually a real bastardization of the justice system… sexual assault as a charge removes any accountability within this context for any of the claimants involved — specifically regarding their other sexual activities within our community,” says Mikiki, a Toronto-based HIV/AIDS activist. “Not only does it further HIV stigma and homophobia and fear around testing for dudes who don't know their status, it also reinforces the need for poz guys to conceal our status out of fear of criminal prosecution and not the opposite.”

Recent decisions in the Quebec and Manitoba Courts of Appeal state that HIV-positive people like Biron, who have an undetectable viral load, are not required by law to disclose their HIV status before engaging in sex because there is no significant risk of HIV transmission — even when it comes to unprotected sex. It was ruled by both courts that an undetectable viral load or the careful use of a condom represented a low risk of transmission, though both court decisions avoided stating that either scenario would automatically cancel out legal liability.

The Manitoba decision also suggests that the nature of the disease has evolved due to availability of new treatments and that HIV is no longer a death sentence.

These points were mirrored in the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision on Dec 10.

Scientific evidence related to treatment options and viral load will certainly be introduced in court as part of Biron’s defence, but the work of investigative journalist Roger-Luc Chayer of Gay Globe Media is likely to contribute significantly to Biron’s case as well.

Chayer started digging into the case after being approached by a family member of Biron’s.

“I wasn’t aware of the case, so I asked what was happening. They gave me a briefing about the arrest,” says Chayer. “I was not happy with what Mr Biron did. Somebody is trying to transmit AIDS? This is not a good thing in society. Let’s just say I didn’t have a positive feeling about it. But, I said, of course I’ll look at the documents because I want to know the story. Then I saw the written statements that the [alleged] victims made to the police.”

The online names of the alleged victims were listed in their statements, so Chayer decided to go to the Gay411 site and try to view their profiles. He soon found out that most of the guys who were bringing complaints against Biron were still active on the site and looking for hookups.

“That’s interesting because, when you read the victims’ statements, most of them said that they were traumatized and sick with anxiety,” says Chayer. “In my mind, I was wondering if they would go as far as to do the exact opposite of what they said in their [statements].

“I decided to contact them — not telling them I was a journalist, of course, undercover. I said, you know, my trip is to have bareback [sex]. I want to feel the skin. Don’t talk to me about any condoms. If you talk to me about condoms, I’ll turn you away. Most of them said yes. They didn’t ask me any questions about HIV. I printed every conversation. In their statements, they said that they [had] all questioned Mr Biron about that before having sex with him. They said he gave them a guarantee that he was negative. The problem is that none of them asked me about my HIV status. This happened two or three weeks after Biron was arrested, so it [doesn’t make any sense].”

Chayer’s exposé raised doubt about whether safer sex was something that Biron’s sexual partners were looking for in the first place. The evidence Chayer gathered has been subpoenaed by the court, and he has agreed to release the information in the interests of a fair trial.

“Mr Biron called me once from jail,” says Chayer. “He said to me that before the investigation was published, he was being beaten and harassed. His life in jail was a nightmare. People would cut [out] the newspaper articles about him and put them everywhere so the prisoners would read that and attack him. When the investigation showed that the [alleged] victims were very problematic, his quality of life got a lot better.”

Biron has been in custody since his arrest. After hearing the Crown prosecutor’s evidence on Dec 22, Judge Pelletier refused bail for the accused, saying that he posed a serious threat to public safety.

The accused has parted ways with his counsel and is now represented by another Quebec City lawyer, Denis Bernier.
Bernier will soon petition the court for the right to approach the Quebec Court of Appeals in the hopes of overriding the imprisonment order against Biron, but the process will take between one and three months.

Biron will appear in a Quebec City court Jan 31 for his preliminary hearing.



Share |


Reader Comments


 
DO NOT USE THE TERM BAREBACK!
Wow, I visit Extra as much as I fist Fox News! Both are horrifically extreme. Why does this article use the term "bareback" instead of unsafe sex. Coming from a publication that is aligned with the political ideology of political correctness the magazine should not only practice what it preaches, but also use responsible language.
JT, Toronto ON
01/28/11 6:13 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
There is no significant risk
by those who are undetectable transmitting the virus to others. NONE. There is NO EVIDENCE to support such a stupid notion. Further, why target HIV+ people? There are much more serious and deadly diseases people are spreading without disclosure and without so much as a reach around, yet they are not facing 14 years in prison. SEX does NOT Equal Death. Ignorance however creates oppression and fear to sustain the infantile. I'm not an infant.Go sell this bull-twaddle to the simple, I'm not buying it.
tim, toronto on
01/28/11 7:14 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
re: DO NOT USE THE TERM BAREBACK!
Please explain why you think the term bareback isn't "responsible language"? Or how it has anything to do with political correctness. I see nothing at all wrong with the term and am curious as to why exactly you do.
Rich, Toronto Ontario
01/28/11 7:34 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Going off meds to poz someone
The article suggests that HIV positive people should be able to have all the unprotected sex they want (even if they don't disclose their HIV status to their partners) since an HIV positive person on antiretroviral meds would have an undetectable viral load and would therefore not be able to infect their partner with HIV. The problem with this argument is that, in the bareback fetish community, some HIV positive men will go off meds in order to "poz", "breed","charge" or "gift" their partners. For example, this behaviour is discussed at http://www.rawtop.com/blog/gay/hookups/guys/high-viral-load-poz A "stealth pozzing" occurs when an HIV positive top initially wears a condom, but then later secretly removes it during sex without the bottom's knowledge. If the top was off his meds, he would have a high viral load and would be able to infect ("gift") the bottom with HIV.
Steve, Toronto Ontario
01/28/11 8:21 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Oh here we go again
there is always one isn't there? Today you're THAT guy Steve. And YES undetectable HIV+ men should be able to have all the SEX they want, how they want as long as they are not raping someone. Just so you know, it is NOT an argument. An argument? WTF? Seriously? We are living in terrible, terrible times, and it's not because of undetectable men who cannot infect anyone having HIV+ sex mostly with one another.
tim, toronto on
01/28/11 8:42 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
In Buddhist circles,
there is talk about avoiding sexual misconduct. I interpret that as engaging in sex where anyone involved might get harmed.
tim, toronto on
01/28/11 9:55 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
re: Oh here we go again
it's wrong to not disclose your HIV status. PERIOD. HIV is not herpes or genital warts or the clap. it is a deadly sexually infectious disease. so how is not telling someone you have a deadly and sexually infectious disease before putting them at high risk for getting contracting it not sexually assaulting them? or do they have to be beaten into submission? wrong. but you're probably one of those twisted gays who think it's okay pull gay cards when it suits them. and I also bet you have that ugly looking homo sneer. tres attractif. NOT!
reginald, toronto on
01/28/11 10:19 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Thank you reginald
you have done a fine job of exposing the REAL issue here. Too easy. For my part, I love sex. I love being gay. I love gay sex. I would love having non-infectious poz sex with a non-infectious poz gay man. I love. A lot! Couldn't be prouder, I shit fucking rainbows and sprinkle fairy dust everywhere I go. I don't sneer, but laugh and then laugh some more and I dance! I dance a lot.
tim, toronto on
01/28/11 11:55 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
The US housing collapse is analagous to HIV spread
You think I am crazy for drawing such a comparison? HIV is an infectious deadly disease that kills millions of people of years. Spare me the fucking western mentality it is my life I can do whatever I can? Really it is illegal to drive without a seat belt and unsafe sex would be too but IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE! Tim you are one lucky homo that society picks up the tab. I suppose the Canadian public isn't so homophobic as some would claim to be THEY AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ALLOW US TO LIVE LIKE THIS. Personal responsibility is dead in the west. Gay men are no different than the general population although we claim we are, LOL. How many people in the west feel they are entitled to live a "free life" they can blindly sign mortgage papers for money they know they can't afford, they can sit on unwrapped cocks knowing the risks. All because that false EUPHORIA. The real question is, how much longer does the system hold for?
JT, Toronto ON
01/29/11 6:41 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
re: DO NOT USE THE TERM BAREBACK!
Rich you tell me? What sounds sexier "do you want bareback" Or do you want to have unsafe sex" Neutral language should be used in respectable reporting. Or that is what I learned. Here are some more. PNP? = Do you use drugs and have sex you POZ = Are you infected with HIV TINA = METH (GROSS) mention meth in the general population and see the look of disgust on one's face.
re: DO NOT USE THE TERM BAREBACK!, Toronto ON
01/29/11 6:53 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
People are still getting infected
The premise of the Xtra article is wrong and dangerous. According to statistics on the website of the AIDS Committee of Toronto, 612 Torontonians were diagnosed as HIV-positive in 2008 (up from 575 in 2007). In 2008, gay, bisexual men and other men who have sex with men accounted for 56% of all new HIV diagnoses in Toronto. See: http://www.actoronto.org/home.nsf/pages/hivaidsstatsto. So, HIV positive gay men are still infecting other gay men with HIV. Even though HIV medications can result in a low viral load, it appears that many HIV positive men are still able to infect other people with HIV either because they are not taking their medications, are not taking them properly or the medications don’t work on them (e.g., they have a strain of HIV that is resistant to the medications). Furthermore, a gay man can become infected with HIV during a sexual encounter and then go on to infect other people (i.e., they don't know they have sero-converted until they take their next HIV test).
Kevin, Toronto Ontario
01/29/11 10:55 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Oh Pleeze,
FEAR, FEAR, FEAR mongering not based on evidence. Anyone can pull a rabbit out of their arse to support the most ridiculous claims based on fear, motivated by hate and discrimination. The study says nothing about undetectable viral transmission, you're interpretation is speculative and fear based. Just because you tell me the sky is purple doesn't make it so. Show me the Evidence! The incidence of HIV infection rates has NOTHING to do with transmission (impossibility) by those with UNDETECTABLE Viral Loads. Nothing. Doesn't happen. Never did and it can't. As to the evidence based elements of SCIENCE brought into the legal arguments as this article brings forth, this is finally a step in the right direction.
tim, toronto on
01/29/11 11:27 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Possible consequences of this case
tim, have you thought about the possible consequences of this court case? You may not like the result. The arguments of the accused in the criminal case seem to be as follows: even though I am HIV positive, I should not be prosecuted for having unsafe sex with other people without informing them of my HIV status because I am on HIV medications and therefore have a low viral load and wouldn't be able to infect someone with HIV. If the court accepts those arguments, then future HIV cases would presumably be based on what a top's viral load was on the date they had unsafe sex with a bottom who later complained to the police. The police would presumably obtain the medical records of the top (since HIV positive people have regular blood tests to determine their viral load). If the top had a low viral load on the date of the sexual encounter, the police would presumably not charge the top with a criminal offense. But, if the accused had a high viral load on the date of the sexual encounter (e.g., because they were not taking their medications or the medications stopped working on them), the police would presumably charge the top with a criminal offense. If an HIV positive top stopped having regular viral load tests yet continued to have unsafe sex without informing their partners of their HIV status, a court could impose criminal liablity on the grounds that the top was being criminally negligent or reckless.
Kevin, Toronto Ontario
01/29/11 12:00 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Undectable
was Birons viral load. I need not start speculating at this time, if, or if, or maybe that, or if and what pray tell if gays get married, next they'll marry goats, what if, what if, what if? Go sell the iffy to the simpletons of the world. I'm not buying. HE WAS/IS UNDETECTABLE!
tim, toronto on
01/29/11 12:10 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
For over 20 years.....
the protocol has been: do not assume and protect yourself.If, I get infected with HIV either by chasing the bug or not wearing a condom: I cannot blame anyone but myself. I know part of this protocol has been lost on lots of people but we have to be responsable for ourselves, if this guy is to receive a 14 years sentence for taking the decision to infect other people which willingly choose to have unprotected sex? something is very wrong here! He told me he was not positive doesn't fly anymore.
Louis, Vancouver BC
01/29/11 12:25 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Different morals and values
Louis, I realize that many AIDS activists, AIDS organizations and sex radicals have always maintained that if an HIV negative person has unsafe sex (or uses condoms and the condom breaks) and gets infected with HIV, then they are responsible for their own infection and the person who infected them bears no responsibility (i.e., HIV positive poeple should be able to have unsafe sex without any duty to disclose their HIV status and without any criminal liabiily or responsiblity - even if they infect another person). But, the criminal courts and broader society have historically not accepted that position. I agree that people are responsible for their own health, but I do believe that criminal liability should be imposed on an HIV positive top who secretly removes a condom when having anal sex with a bottom (the bottom consented to sex with a condom, he did not consent to unsafe sex). Also, if an HIV positive person has a high viral load, they should be required to disclose their sero-status before having unsafe sex.
Kevin, Toronto Ontario
01/29/11 12:53 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
UNDETECTABLE...no transmission.
Biron's, (the accused) viral load was/is UNDETECTABLE and therefore incapable of infecting anyone with HIV. He made NO decision to infect anyone with anything because evidence states that the transmission of HIV is virtually IMPOSSIBLE (there has never been a proven case) to transmit HIV with an undetectable viral load.
tim, toronto on
01/29/11 1:00 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
the state of law in Quebec
It's worth posting here that the Cort of Appeal of Quebec ruled on Dec 13, 2010 in a case referred as R. c. D.C. that based on the medical evidence (the accused had an undetectable viral load) the sexual encounter did not pose a serious risk of transmission and reversed a lower courts conviction. http://www.aidslaw.ca/EN/lawyers-kit/documents/11.DC2010summary.pdf
Fred, London On
01/29/11 2:08 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Kevin
Proving he removed his condom during intercourse in court is almost impossible to do, unless you were to go to the hospital right away for tests and it is not a sure thing. I would not want to be a prosecutor. What ever happen to knowing your partner(s) well? Consent is not always a two way street and after all men do not lie in order to have sex? Takes two to Tango.
Louis, Vancouver BC
01/29/11 7:11 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
He removed the condom--behind my back
He removed the condom--behind my back--that I securely placed on him! He changed my life for ever. Hard to prove in court...blah, blah...takes two to tango...blah, blah...undetectable viral load...blah, blah...low risk of tansmission...blah, blah...no longer a death sentence....blah, blah...I you are the one, of the .004% who is infected, then the statistics are meaningless. My friends who have been HIV+ for years, still suffer from medication side effects and opportunistic diseases and financial burdens and emotional trauma. I don't have to look forward to a death sentence--but some things are worse than death!! I still fantasize about stabbing him until he is maimed and disfigured for life!! Not dead--just maimed and disfigured...
Meaningless Statistics, toronto ont
01/29/11 8:41 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Interesting developments
About the conversation as to the appropriate terminology here (ie, bareback vs unsafe) -- the commenters have a point: careful use of language by (especially advocacy) journalists is very important, something that has been highlighted by activists and cultural commentators since the 80s. Neither "bareback sex" nor "unsafe sex" is a particularly useful term for condomless butt sex, ideally it should be called simply what it is: "unprotected anal sex." The first term is sensationalizing and the second one is only true some of the time. To tim's point, undetectable viral load in blood does not mean HIV transmission is impossible, it means the risk is greatly reduced compared to circumstances when a person without HIV has unprotected anal sex with someone who has a detectable HIV viral load. Kevin misrepresents the position of HIV advocates regarding responsibility for unprotected sex; it is shared by both partners. And to the point in the article about the other recent cases, it's more accurate to state that the D.C. and Mabior cases "suggest" that unprotected sex with an unprotected viral load may be considered to not be a significant risk. These individual cases do set some precedents, but are not binding in terms of the criminal law. Ideally the Biron case with have a similar outcome. Most telling is Mikiki's quote, which helps make it clear why criminalization endangers everyone, especially those people who are poz.
Shawn Syms, Toronto ON
01/29/11 11:17 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
to: Meaningless Statistics, toronto ont
Thanks for your post. I feel your compassion and I will continue to do everything I can to rid the world of HIV STIGMA and HIV MISINFORMATION which creates so so much of what is now present such as the chronic horrors you posted. It doesn't have to be that way. Getting rid of criminalization is the first step. I would be nice to have lawyers who do not support the criminalization of HIV such as "fierce advocates" HALCO the HIV Legal. YEP. It's that bad!http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Time_to_stand_against_the_criminalization_of_HIV-7529.aspx
tim, toronto on
01/30/11 9:29 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
The blame game is on...
WTF: It is both our responsabilities to ensure the condom is on, you get fuck: you check, you fuck: you check.I was lost into the passion of the momment? in the world we live in is not applicable. I had to adapt like everybody else and I made the choice to protect myself and my partners.When HIV was with us in the early 80's, we were not informed but now does anyone really listen ?Yeah, Dude it's an old guy disease.
Louis, Vancouver BC
01/30/11 12:04 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Keep checking that the condom is on
Louis does make a good point. If you choose to be the passive partner in anal sex with a total stranger in a bathhouse or in an internet hook-up or a one-night stand, you need to constantly keep checking that the top still has the condom on. A lot of people can tell you that they have been in situations where the top has secretly taken the condom off during anal sex. It's sad to say, but we can't really trust each other (despite all the platitudes of HIV advocates who oppose criminal sanctions). If an HIV positive top secretly removes his condom during anal sex, he obviously cares more about his pleasure than your life.
David, Toronto Ontario
01/30/11 12:53 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
CRIMINALIZE HIV TRANSMISSION
@TIM, Can't you read? Someone I put a condom on--secretly took it off while fucking me. He was HIV+. That behaviour is disgusting!! YES, I do support the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure. If low viral load reduces risk of transmission, then why are the HIV infection rates and levels still high? Because, WE GET HIV FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE HIV. We get HIV from people who have and spread HIV, either purposely or accidentally or negligently. HIV TRANSMISSION MUST BE CRIMINALIZED !! HIV is no longer a death sentence --WHO CARES !! If you are the one, of the .004% who is infected, then the statistics are meaningless. My friends who have been HIV+ for years, still suffer from medication side effects and opportunistic diseases and financial burdens and emotional trauma. I don't have to look forward to a death sentence --but some things are worse than death!! I still fantasize about stabbing the HIV+ guy who secretly took the condom off to fuck me --until he is maimed and disfigured for life!! Not dead --just maimed and disfigured...
CRIMINALIZE HIV TRANSMISSION, toronto ont
01/30/11 5:00 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
re: CRIMINALIZE HIV TRANSMISSION, toronto ont
If what you say is true (this is the internet, after all) then you should contact the police and the man charged with sexual assault (rape). The sex you consented to involved a condom. If the top removed the condom and continued to fuck you, well, obviously you did not consent to that. That said, you're situation really isn't the same as what the story is discussing, is it?
Dan, Toronto ON
01/31/11 9:52 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Stupid barebackers
If you are stupid enough to bareback with someone who says he is neg, you should know by now that he is probably HIV+ and will likely give it to you. I really resent paying for your drugs, you selfish fools. If you are poz and hateful enough to lie about your status and needless risk someone else's life (and my tax dollars), you deserve to charged with attempted manslaughter.
William, Montreal QC
01/31/11 1:29 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
apples and oranges (and other fruit too)
There's a whole bunch of partial facts and intense personal opinions coming out in these comments, and frankly why shouldn't there be!? I am excited that people are interested in engaging in a dialogue about HIV, the impact and effects of 'Criminalization' and our individual and community responsibility. I wanted to touch on a few things: @tim - the Swiss Statement http://bit.ly/g3LVNf referred to undetectable VL and no other STI (as that can increase infectiousness!) really important to get tested regularly for other STIs! and while it was only str8 ppl studied, there's obviously community evidence that it can apply to homo-love as well. @Kevin - I take some issue with your re-framing of what us 'HIV Activists .. and sex radicals' do in terms of trying to acknowledge the necessity of a shared responsibility for prevention. Which seems to be a point that's lost on you. You reference rawtop's blog and ACT's posting of recent infection rates and draw immediate conclusions that (to me) smack of sex negativity, poz-phobia and deeply internalized homophobia. There's a long debate about the role of fantasy vs the need for HIV prevention education in our porn and I would have hoped could have survived the 90's. Talking about a rape fantasy on an online forum doesn't make me a rapist. I'm not saying that all poz people are benevolent angels but I think you need to check your assumptions that we're all canceling our brunch plans to 'gift' the 20 year old jock next door. I for one really value eating brunch. And with attitudes out in OUR community (I was negative once too you know) that poz people are deceitful and sexual menaces you do two things that are unhelpful: a) reinforce the stigma that being HIV+ means something negative (haha!) about my character, which it doesn't. period. and b) you frigging totally ignore the fact that around 30% of people who are HIV+ in ontario don't yet know their status. I wonder if they are the "neg" boys like I was befo
Mikiki, Toronto ON
02/01/11 6:53 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
and another thing!
I wonder if they are the "neg" boys like I was before my diagnosis...? stigmatizing poz folks discourages people from getting tested because we don't want to 'become' that thing you make us think is so horrible. People fall in love, get crushes, feel shitty and make decisions they regret. Condomless sex feels better and we sometimes do it when the consequences are bigger than we're willing to deal with but it doesn't make anyone into a monster, nor - might add- a saintly victim.
Mikiki, Toronto ON
02/01/11 7:01 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Atitudes within the gay community
Mikiki's post raises some interesting issues about atitudes towards HIV non-disclosure and criminalization in the gay community. Accorduing to a recent US study of 1,725 men who have sex with men: (1) Overall, 65% of the men believed that it should be illegal for HIV-positive individuals to have unprotected sex without disclosure, 23% thought it should not be illegal and 12% did not know; (2) Support for criminalisation was highest (79%) among men aged between 18 and 20, and lowest (56%) among those aged 41 to 70; (3) The overwhelming majority (70%) of HIV-negative and untested men (69%) supported legal sanctions, but only 38% of HIV-positive men endorsed criminalisation. For more info and analysis on the study, see: http://www.aidsmap.com/news/Majority-of-US-gay-men-support-HIV-transmission-laws/page/1514281/
Jake, Toronto Ontario
02/05/11 9:05 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.